I take 2 really key points from your post which describes a sadly familiar story.
Firstly:
We should never underestimate the pernicious and cumulative impact of a poorly functioning PC.
Whether that be through failure to serve the community, failure towards its constituent parts (the Cllrs) or failure to employees.
Whereas it seems relatively commonplace to see clerks complaining of poor PCs - and utilising the well established, gold plated protections afforded by the established systems to facilitate promote and protect the continuation of poor performance - it is sadly rare to hear of Cllr’s utilising a similar protective system. I’d go so far as to say there are identifiable barriers to individual Cllr’s holding poorly performing PCs (and clerks) to account.
PCs that fail Cllr’s are (I suspect) much more common than any example of failure of a PC as an employer towards its staff. The main difference being - a clerk will fall back on the gold plated grievance procedure (sometimes to shield them self from rightful criticism and generate a culture of invincibility) and a Cllr will most likely “put up and shut up” or resign. Once in a while, there are Cllr’s that are made of sterner stuff and, regardless of the efforts of a PC or clerk, they will not yield to corporate intimidation and they will not tolerate incompetence.
I suspect this theory would be borne out by the figures (if they were available) of repeat resignations and co-options to PCs and the general lack of public willingness to even start down the path of becoming a parish councillor.
Granted, the 2 functions of clerk and Cllr are notably different - one being a direct employee of a PC, the other being a voluntary member. That said, some of the protections normally associated with being an employee (which are then gold plated and turbo charged in relation to any circumstance where local government / local authority is involved) naturally cross-over (in degrees) to the voluntary sector.
HSE ‘touches’ upon it here:
https://www.hse.gov.uk/voluntary/when-it-applies.htm
Maybe, when time permits, it will be interesting to explore the civil liabilities of a voluntary entity towards its volunteers.
The second point being that of local associations.
From my own perspective, when I joined a dysfunctional PC generating the interest and support to subscribe to the local association was a natural and necessary first step. The ‘old sweats’ including the 20 year served clerk were naturally opposed to the idea since any perceived ‘challenge’ to their established MO was seen as a threat.
Circumstance came together to result in that clerk “resigning” and the process of seeking and engaging a new one was naturally and unarguably best done as a member of the local association.
As the years rolled by however, it has become apparent that the local association is perhaps not the overarching, super advisor and mentor that it presents itself to be. There was resistance from clerk, PC chair AND the local association to allow access to the association document library and newsletter for individual Cllr’s. “Knowledge is power” and it was clearly apparent that shared knowledge was perceived as a threat to power.
I see the problem being that those in local association executive roles are likely to have gained that position having risen up through local authority or local government positions and - of itself - that carries with it the bad habits and institutionalised way of thinking and working - including the observation that they may appear to be a support function to the clerk rather than the council. Maybe they should have a little think about who it is that votes to approve the membership and start thinking more about who they should be providing support to.
Local associations - are they worth the money? Jury still out on that one.
